Bug#579227: Looks like we should drop jscoverage for squeeze

2012-09-02 Thread Johan Euphrosine
I'm not aware of any alternative for javascript coverage packaged in debian. So if possible I would like to keep it in unstable.

Bug#579227: Looks like we should drop jscoverage for squeeze

2012-09-02 Thread Johan Euphrosine
Sure, it doesn't seem upstream is actively developing it anymore. On Sep 2, 2012 1:39 AM, "David Prévot" wrote: > Control: found -1 0.3.1-1 > > Hi, > > On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 08:51:40PM +0100, Johan Euphrosine wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Enrico Zini > wrote: > > > Hello, > > > >

Bug#579227: Looks like we should drop jscoverage for squeeze

2012-09-01 Thread David Prévot
Control: found -1 0.3.1-1 Hi, On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 08:51:40PM +0100, Johan Euphrosine wrote: > On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Enrico Zini wrote: > > Hello, > > > > thank you for maintaining jscoverage. > > > > jscoverage 0.3.1-1 is currently in squeeze and sid and has RC bugs open > > again

Bug#579227: Looks like we should drop jscoverage for squeeze

2010-11-13 Thread Johan Euphrosine
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Enrico Zini wrote: > Hello, > > thank you for maintaining jscoverage. > > jscoverage 0.3.1-1 is currently in squeeze and sid and has RC bugs open > against it. > > Considering that the package has a very small number of users, that > we're supposed to release fairl

Bug#579227: Looks like we should drop jscoverage for squeeze

2010-11-13 Thread Enrico Zini
Hello, thank you for maintaining jscoverage. jscoverage 0.3.1-1 is currently in squeeze and sid and has RC bugs open against it. Considering that the package has a very small number of users, that we're supposed to release fairly soon, and that this issue looks not that easy to solve, it may be